Morphological MR features and quantitative ADC evaluation in invasive breast cancer: Correlation with prognostic factors

Assessment of Prognostic Factors and Molecular Subtypes of Breast Cancer With a Continuous-Time Random-Walk MR Diffusion Model: Using Whole Tumor Histogram Analysis

BACKGROUND

The continuous-time random-walk (CTRW) diffusion model to evaluate breast cancer prognosis is rarely reported.

PURPOSE

To investigate the correlations between apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and CTRW-specific parameters with prognostic factors and molecular subtypes of breast cancer.

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective.

POPULATION

One hundred fifty-seven women (median age, 50 years; range, 26-81 years) with histopathology-confirmed breast cancer.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

Simultaneous multi-slice readout-segmented echo-planar imaging at 3.0T.

ASSESSMENT

The histogram metrics of ADC, anomalous diffusion coefficient (D), temporal diffusion heterogeneity (α), and spatial diffusion heterogeneity (β) were calculated for whole-tumor volume. Associations between histogram metrics and prognostic factors (estrogen receptor [ER], progesterone receptor [PR], human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2], and Ki-67 proliferation index), axillary lymph node metastasis (ALNM), and tumor grade were assessed. The performance of histogram metrics, both alone and in combination, for differentiating molecular subtypes (HER2-positive, Luminal or triple negative) was also assessed.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Comparisons were made using Mann-Whitney test between different prognostic factor statuses and molecular subtypes. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess the performance of mean and median histogram metrics in differentiating the molecular subtypes. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The histogram metrics of ADC, D, and α differed significantly between ER-positive and ER-negative status, and between PR-positive and PR-negative status. The histogram metrics of ADC, D, α, and β were also significantly different between the HER2-positive and HER2-negative subgroups, and between ALNM-positive and ALNM-negative subgroups. The histogram metrics of α and β significantly differed between high and low Ki-67 proliferation subgroups, and between histological grade subgroups. The combination of αmean and βmean achieved the highest performance (AUC = 0.702) to discriminate the Luminal and HER2-positive subtypes.

DATA CONCLUSION

Whole-tumor histogram analysis of the CTRW model has potential to provide additional information on the prognosis and intrinsic subtyping classification of breast cancer.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Histogram analysis of multi-model high-resolution diffusion-weighted MRI in breast cancer: correlations with molecular prognostic factors and subtypes

Objective

To investigate the correlations between quantitative diffusion parameters and prognostic factors and molecular subtypes of breast cancer, based on a single fast high-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequence with mono-exponential (Mono), intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM), diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) models.

Materials and Methods

A total of 143 patients with histopathologically verified breast cancer were included in this retrospective study. The multi-model DWI-derived parameters were quantitatively measured, including Mono-ADC, IVIM-D, IVIM-D*, IVIM-f, DKI-Dapp, and DKI-Kapp. In addition, the morphologic characteristics of the lesions (shape, margin, and internal signal characteristics) were visually assessed on DWI images. Next, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Mann-Whitney U test, Spearman's rank correlation, logistic regression, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and Chi-squared test were utilized for statistical evaluations.

Results

The histogram metrics of Mono-ADC, IVIM-D, DKI-Dapp, and DKI-Kapp were significantly different between estrogen receptor (ER)-positive vs. ER-negative groups, progesterone receptor (PR)-positive vs. PR-negative groups, Luminal vs. non-Luminal subtypes, and human epidermal receptor factor-2 (HER2)-positive vs. non-HER2-positive subtypes. The histogram metrics of Mono-ADC, DKI-Dapp, and DKI-Kapp were also significantly different between triple-negative (TN) vs. non-TN subtypes. The ROC analysis revealed that the area under the curve considerably improved when the three diffusion models were combined compared with every single model, except for distinguishing lymph node metastasis (LNM) status. For the morphologic characteristics of the tumor, the margin showed substantial differences between ER-positive and ER-negative groups.

Conclusions

Quantitative multi-model analysis of DWI showed improved diagnostic performance for determining the prognostic factors and molecular subtypes of breast lesions. The morphologic characteristics obtained from high-resolution DWI can be identifying ER statuses of breast cancer.